judging_manual by EAA Vintage Aircraft Association

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION

O F F I C I A L E A A

J U D G I N G

S T A N D A R D S

M A N U A L

October 2011

FOREWORD The EAA Official Judging Standards is compiled by the EAA Judging Standards Committee. The EAA Official Judging Standards is the basis of judging at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh and other major fly-ins and provides judges and the exhibitor/competitors in each class the rules and criteria, which are used in evaluating the aircraft. The purpose of the EAA Official Judging Standards is to provide uniformity and continuity of judging standards to all concerned especially the judges, fly-in directors, and participants of all major events across the United States and around the world. These EAA Official Judging Standards are continuously monitored and updated to reflect changes as they evolve in all these fields, and changes may be implemented before they are published. EAA Members are encouraged to submit their comments and recommendations per the procedures outlined in the EAA Judging Policy published at the end of this Forward. We look forward to responding to the comments made by EAA members who would like to improve the Judging Standards. The Judging Standards Committee represents the EAA Board of Directors and President in all aspects related to standards and judging at the annual International EAA AirVenture Fly-In and Convention held annually on Wittman Field, Oshkosh, Wisconsin. It is the intent that this manual serves as the standard for judging at major EAA regional and local events. Applicable to the annual EAA Fly-In, with the exception of the Homebuilt Aircraft section, the Judging Chairmen of the different judging disciplines will be chosen by the Boards of Directors of the respective Divisions (where applicable) or by the Advisory Councils, with the approval of the Judging Standards Committee. The Judging Chairmen of the Homebuilt Aircraft will be chosen by the Judging Standards Committee with the approval of the Chairman of the EAA AirVenture Fly-In. This is a living document. Changes and revisions, designed by Judges, representing EAA and all EAA Divisions, and approved by the Judging Standards Committee, will be implemented as necessary even before the publication of those changes in the new revisions of the manual. Every effort will be made to update this publication online as soon as possible after a revision has been made. Bob Reece, EAA #82844 Chairman, EAA Judging Standards Committee Chief Judge, EAA AirVenture AWARDS The EAA awards program highlights the accomplishments of EAA members across the wide spectrum of aviation interests that EAA encompasses. EAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s awards are recognized worldwide as the most prestigious for aircraft construction and restoration. During EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, we encourage all members to honor the achievements of their peers at the various awards ceremonies. If you are an aircraft builder or restorer, we encourage you to attend the awards ceremony for your interest area, to receive your award and the applause of your fellow EAA members. All EAA members are encouraged to attend the awards ceremonies when they can learn more about the judging system, and recognize the outstanding achievements of their fellow members.

October 2011

For information on the exact time and place of the awards for your area of interest, please see EAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual convention newspaper, AirVenture Today. We hope to see you there! Ed Wischmeyer, EAA #18879 Awards Committee Chairman, EAA AirVenture THE JUDGES The judging of contest aircraft is a difficult, demanding, rewarding, and sometimesthankless job. Each year the quality of aircraft presented at AirVenture is better than the last, and the burden of choosing among them is greater. The primary effort is to be objective and as professional as possible in evaluating the aircraft. The resulting decisions represent the consensus of a number of judges who have devoted considerable time and effort and who are aware of the importance of their decisions to the exhibitors. Judging is a voluntary activity with the only rewards being the satisfaction of a meaningful job well done. The judges not only donate their time and considerable effort, but they are also knowledgeable and bring a high degree of professionalism. They are to be commended for the dedication that they all bring to this effort as they honor their fellow EAA members though their volunteer services. The decisions of the judges are final. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system. GENERAL Any aircraft that has won an award at AirVenture, will not be eligible for the same or a lesser award in subsequent years. In any given year, all aircraft are eligible to be judged in only one division; any aircraft that has been judged in any of the divisions is ineligible to be judged in any other of the divisions. In order to be judged, the aircraft must be parked in the appropriate area. Any aircraft that has won an award in any division will in subsequent years be ineligible to be judged in any other division. In every category (unless otherwise excepted) in order to be eligible to be judged, the aircraft must either have flown to the convention or be observed to fly during the convention. Scale Replicas (a replica that is less than full size) will be regarded as Homebuilt, with certain exceptions as noted. EAA STATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT JUDGING POLICY Since itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inception over 50 years ago, EAA has chosen to underscore the outstanding achievements of its members in a variety of ways, including the presentation of awards to those aircraft that exhibit a high degree of craftsmanship and ingenuity in their construction or restoration. EAA is grateful for the work done on a year-round basis by the volunteer leadership of the EAA Judging community, and wish to make it clear to members and other interested parties that the implementation and execution of the Judging Standards is the responsibility of the EAA volunteer judging community. EAA Headquarters staff is involved in the logistic and documentation aspects of the EAA Judging Standards, and is in no way involved in the selection of those aircraft deemed by the judges as worthy of an award. Awards selection is made by the volunteer judges, and their decision in these matters is final.

October 2011

EAA reserves the right to add to or subtract from the awards lists, in consultation with the chairman and the members of the Judging Standards committee. Major events which have sponsorship agreements with EAA, and local chapter events, are expected, by virtue of their signed agreement or their “good standing” status, to agree to utilize the EAA Judging Standards Manual in it’s entirety, with no modification, including but not limited to the awards to be presented (a shorter or consolidated list of award types in type categories is permitted). Also, no additional awards can be added to this list without the concurrence of the Committee. Requests for changes and any subsequent approval for such a change shall be made in accordance with the procedure outlined below. The Judging Standards Committee is composed of the following members: Chairman, EAA Judging Standards Committee Chairman, Homebuilt Aircraft Judging Chairman, Vintage Aircraft Judging Chairman, Warbirds of America Judging Chairman, Rotorcraft Judging Chairman, Lightplane/Ultralight Judging Chairman, Seaplane Judging Requested changes to the EAA Judging standards manual will be reviewed by the Judging Standards Committee on a regular basis. Requests, in writing, are to be mailed to this address: Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. Rod Hightower, President/CEO RE: Judging Program Change Request PO Box 3086 Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086 E-Mail: EAAJudgingChangesRequest@eaa.org Acknowledgement of receipt by EAA Headquarters of a request for a change to the standards will be made via regular mail. Both E-mail and regular mail requests shall include a full mailing address and e-mail address, if possible, and should include a clear description of the change(s) requested, and justification for such a change. Unless urgent action is needed, the committee will review requests for changes during the fall/winter season. The Judging Standards committee will review each request and make a recommendation to maintain or revise the current standards. Meetings can be face-to-face or electronic (e-mail, web-based audio/video) in format. A written report detailing the current members of the committee, meeting attendance and disposition of the requests will created by the chairman of the Judging Standards Committee, and will be forwarded to the President on an annual basis, or more often if deemed necessary by the chairman.

October 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AIRCRAFT JUDGING SCORING DECISION TREE

HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT

III

VINTAGE AIRCRAFT

WARBIRDS

VULTRALIGHTS / LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT

ROTORCRAFT

VII SEAPLANES

October 2011

AIRCRAFT JUDGING SCORING DECISION TREE

YES

IS IT EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN A FACTORY NEW AIRCRAFT?

ABOVE AVERAGE CRAFTSMANSHIP

YES

IS IT BETTER THAN AVERAGE?

NO YES

AIRWORTHY, BUT DEFINITELY NOT SHOW QUALITY

IS IT AIRWORTHY?

JUDGES IMPRESSION

TYPICAL OBSERVATIONS

SCORE

PERFECT, IMPOSSIBLE TO DO BETTER

Flawless in all respects

EXCELLENT, VERY MINOR FLAWS

Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail. Flaws difficult to detect.

VERY GOOD. MINOR FLAWS

Very fine workmanship. Flaws apparent to the trained eye, but not distracting.

GOOD. SHOWS PRIDE IN WORKMANSHIP

Very good attention to detail. Shows high standards of craftsmanship and polish. Strong show quality.

SOLIDLY ABOVE AVERAGE. LOOKS GOOD.

Very solid and consistent. Shows attention to detail. Minor flaws are easy to detect.

SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE

Exhibits consistency, but could easily be improved with only slightly more work and minimal attention to detail.

AVERAGE

Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or over built in some areas, little finesse or detail.

FUNCTIONAL

Builder made no obvious attempt to do work beyond that necessary to do the job.

CRUDE

Workmanship skills totally lacking. Work is questionably functional with little regard to aeronautical standard.

VERY CRUDE

Airworthiness marginally acceptable. Not done to aeronautical standard or equivalent.

MAJOR DEFICIENCY

Deficiency is a safety of flight item with potential for catastrophic flight failure.

REWORK MANDATORY

JUDGES DECISIONS October 2011

HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT I. REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTION OF JUDGES Judges will be selected by the Chairman of Homebuilt Aircraft Judging with the approval of the Chairman of the Judging Standards Committee. All Judges must be a current member in good standing of the Experimental Aircraft Association. The chairman shall invite only those individuals to act as judges who possess the qualifications detailed below: A. The individual must be a current member in good standing of the Experimental Aircraft Association. B. The individual must possess a sound background and knowledge of aircraft construction techniques, workmanship requirements, safety requirements, and should possess a sound background in amateur built aircraft construction. C. The following qualifications may be utilized to determine if an individual meets the requirements of paragraph B above: 1. Aircraft and Powerplant Mechanic License 2. Aircraft Inspector License 3. EAA Technical Counselor 4. Experience gained by construction of Homebuilt aircraft 5. Experience gained by significant work in metal, wood and composite construction and restoration of aircraft. D. The individual must possess the personal dedication to pursue the task of judging diligently to a conclusion with a minimum of supervision. E. Judges shall be selected from as many geographical areas of the country as possible to provide a broad experience base. Qualified foreign EAA members may also serve as judges. F. The judges must remember that they are representatives of EAA and conduct themselves accordingly at all times.

II. JUDGING OPERATIONAL FORMAT The following represents the general operational format of the Homebuilt judging. A. A meeting of the Homebuilt Judging Committee will be convened in a planning session at 9:00 AM or other designated time as appropriate each day of the fly-in to discuss operating practices, provide instructions, review ratings, and to vote on the awards. B. Judging activities will commence immediately following the daily planning meeting. October 2011

C. Judging will start no later than the morning of the second full day of the fly-in and continue until approximately noon of the day before the Homebuilt awards are to be presented. At that time the final decisions are made so as to provide time for the Awards Chairman to have the appropriate trophies prepared. D. Each judge will be provided with an identifying badge, which should be displayed while acting in a judging capacity. E. Judges will operate in teams of two or three whenever possible. F. Judges will use Forms A and B as described in the Judging Practices section of this handbook. In the event electronic judging is utilized, the pre-programmed portable computers and software will be employed for judging. G. Rating forms shall be turned in by 4:00 PM or as directed by the Chief Judge each day. H. To be eligible for an award an aircraft must be judged by no less than three judges during AirVenture. Fewer judges may be required for other EAA Fly-Ins. I. Aircraft selected for consideration for awards shall be determined by averaging all the judges’ individual scores for that aircraft. J. Final awards shall be determined by majority vote of the judges. The Chairman of Homebuilt Judging will vote only to break a tie. In general the judging scores will determine the awards, with the exception that the judges will have the option of final discretion in special circumstances. K. The decisions of the judges are final. L. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system.

III. AIRCRAFT TO BE JUDGED A. Registration Homebuilt aircraft will be divided into two categories: Plans-built and Kit Built. Only aircraft that have been registered as Experimental, Plans-built or Kit Built at Aircraft Registration will be judged. At the time the aircraft is registered, the owner-builder will indicate on the registration form if he/she wishes to have the aircraft judged. The owner/operator must be a member in good standing of the Experimental Aircraft Association in order to be judged and possibly receive an award. If the owner indicates that he/she wishes to have his/her aircraft judged, he/she will be given a “Please Judge Me” sticker to affix to the propeller card issued by Aircraft Registration. The sticker has three boxes for the judges to initial when they have completed judging the aircraft. As judges tour the display areas it is only necessary to look for the “Judge Me” sticker to determine if an aircraft requires additional judging. B. Categories 1. Plans-built Aircraft that are constructed without the aid of purchased major subassemblies, or aircraft of original design will be considered Plans-built. The intent is for the builder to have learned a variety of skills and to have constructed the aircraft from scratch. The aircraft must be registered by the FAA in the Experimental Amateur Built Category, FAR 21.191(g). 2. Kit Built Aircraft built from kits listed in the FAA’s List of Amateur-Built Aircraft Kits posted on their website at:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/ will ordinarily be placed in the Kit Built Category. Builders who do not have access to the internet can write for a copy of the list from the FAA by sending their request to: Federal Aviation Administration Amateur-Built Kit List Manager, October 2011

Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230 800 Independence Ave, SW Suite 815 Washington D.C. 20591 Other aircraft that are intended by the manufacturer to be Kit Built aircraft and have not yet been added to the list published by the FAA but clearly comply with the intent of the FAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s list will be considered in the Kit Built category. If a builder of what would ordinarily be considered to be a Kit Built plane has in fact scratch built it from the plans, he/she may elect to have it considered a Plans-built aircraft. The aircraft must be certified by the FAA in the Experimental Amateur Built Category, FAR 21.191(g).

October 2011

3. Classic Homebuilt Aircraft constructed under Experimental Amateur Built Category FAR 21.191(g) and twenty years or more old on the day before the convention starts are eligible to be judged in the Classic Homebuilt Category. The aircraft may be restored or continuously maintained. Aircraft will be judged for workmanship and authenticity. Major modifications such as changing wing configuration or engine from a radial to horizontally opposed will disqualify the aircraft from judging under this category. The aircraft should be in its basic original configuration. Changes to maintain the operational capability are allowed such as radio upgrades and engine modifications. It is not required that the original owner/builder still own and maintain the aircraft. The aircraft may be maintained professionally per current FARs. However, all other things being equal, preference would be given to the aircraft that is still owned and maintained by the original owner/builder or a close relative. Flight Requirements To be eligible to receive an award the following criteria must be met. 1. The aircraft must meet the FAA minimum requirements for the Experimental Amateur Built Category. 2. The FAA operating limitations restricting flight to a test flight area must have been removed. 3. The aircraft shall have flown to EAA AirVenture or it must be flown during EAA AirVenture. 4. The FAA certification documents must be in order and available for inspection by the judges. Owner Construction Requirements For an aircraft to be classed by the FAA as Amateur Built, 51% of its construction must have been accomplished by the owner/builder. In direct relation to this requirement, the aircraft will be judged for quality of workmanship, originality of design or design innovation, quality of finish and unique safety provisions, all of which relate to the talents and approach of the builder. It should be further recognized that the Experimental Aircraft Association has promoted the learning of all types of skills associated with aircraft construction via assistance to the builder by EAA Technical Counselors and other individuals knowledgeable of those techniques. The judges shall keep in mind that most homebuilt aircraft have been constructed by more than one person with the advice or assistance of others. This practice is consistent with the learning process fostered by the EAA. The judges shall be alert for those aircraft, which have not been built by the exhibitor. These aircraft do not represent an accomplishment of the owner. The owner is encouraged to document the building process and to bring that documentation including especially photos to EAA AirVenture for the benefit of the judges. Without such documentation, points may be deducted particularly in comparison with other aircraft with which there is conclusive documentation of the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the major part of the construction. Replica Aircraft Owner/Exhibitors of reduced scale Warbird replicas are eligible to be judged in the Homebuilt Category, if the owner so desires, and if the aircraft is parked in the Homebuilt area. Full-scale Reproduction aircraft will be judged in the appropriate area, e.g. Vintage, or Warbird. Seaplanes Homebuilt seaplanes and amphibians which choose to be regarded as Homebuilt, and are parked in the Homebuilt area will be judged within their respective categories, i.e. Kit built or Plans-built and will be subject to the same judging criteria.

October 2011

G. Change of ownership does not qualify an aircraft to be judged for an award previously won by a past owner for the same aircraft. However, if the aircraft was significantly improved and additional documented restoration work was accomplished, then it could be considered again for judging. In all cases of eligibility, etc., a vote by the majority of judges will be used to decide.

IV. JUDGING PRACTICES A. Scoring System EAA uses an open judging system in which all aircraft within each of the two major categories referred to above are judged against each other rather than by subtypes such as construction (wood, composite, metal, etc.) or by configuration (biplane, high/low wing, open/closed cockpit, etc.). This facilitates utilization of a standardized numerical judging system. B. Impartiality It is of prime importance that each aircraft presented for judging be treated in an unbiased manner. Judges who consider their review of a particular aircraft as biased, either due to personal acquaintance with the builder, or personal knowledge of its construction may excuse themselves from judging that aircraft. C. Request for Detailed Review Each aircraft shall be judged on all features that are visible. Judges may request the owner to open the cockpit, engine cowl or other access panels to view internal appointments of structure. Such a request should be made by at least three judges in order to prevent repeated requests and inconvenience to the owner. Refusal by the owner to do so will leave the judges to their own discretion regarding these areas, and may result in point deductions. D. Technique Each judge may develop his/her own technique for judging. The technique of judging is of small consequence so long as the objectives of the judging program are met. E. Aircraft General Condition Most owners are proud of their aircraft and spend considerable effort to remove dust, oil and exhaust stains from their aircraft. An aircraft, which is obviously not cared for, should be downgraded. Aircraft are intended to fly and allowances will be made for discoloration and the inevitable minor traces of flight. An airplane need not be absolutely new in order to compete. F. Rating Forms Two forms are provided for use in judging. These forms may be provided in hard copy forms or in electronic form using hand-held portable computers. Form A shall be used to judge those aircraft, which the judge determines to be in contention for an award. Form B shall be used to list those aircraft determined to be average or below and not in contention for an award. G. Approach It is recommended that the judge first accomplish a general walk-around review of the aircraft. If the owner is present, the judge should introduce him/herself and inform the owner that his aircraft is being judged. If the owner informs the judge that he does not wish his aircraft judged, enter “not judged by owner’s request” on the Form B with the aircraft registration number. H. Judging Criteria The ratings given by the respective judges in completing Form A will depend upon their judgment of the factors as they apply to the appropriate areas.

October 2011

1. Safety provisions and safety of flight items (seat belts, shoulder harness including placement, roll over structures, fire control systems, redundant systems, etc.). 2. Use of standard aircraft mechanical practice. 3. Quality of workmanship. 4. Innovation and improvements. 5. Evidence of aforethought and planning. 6. Neatness and consistency. 7. Utilization and placement of instruments and controls. 8. Ease of access for maintenance and preflight. 9. Fit and finish. 10. Presentation including documentation of the building process. 11. Compliance with the FARs and FAA certification is an absolute requirement for consideration, and no score will be given in this category. Judge’s Remarks Judges are encouraged to place comments in the “remarks” section of the judging form for any unique or special items noted during judging which are deemed important to the understanding of his rating. These remarks will be available in the judges meetings for the purpose of remembering and pointing out specific items that may have a bearing on the overall scoring. Awards The Homebuilt judging will judge for only EAA awards and those awards, which have been approved by the EAA Judging Standards Committee.

V. THE EAA SPONSORED HOMEBUILT AWARDS ARE:      

Grand Champion Plans-built ...................................................Gold Lindy Grand Champion Kit Built........................................................Gold Lindy Reserve Grand Champion Plans-built................................... Silver Lindy Reserve Grand Champion Kit Built ....................................... Silver Lindy Champion Homebuilt (Fourteen Awards)............................ Bronze Lindy Outstanding Workmanship (Ten Awards) ................................... Plaques

The last two categories of awards will be divided roughly equally between the two subcategories of Homebuilts, the variations depending on the scores of the aircraft, and numbers of aircraft in the respective categories. These numbers may be modified at the discretion of the Judging Standards Committee.  Paul Poberezny Founders Award for the best Classic Homebuilt Aircraft.  Best School Flight Project  Best Chapter Project  The Stan Dzik Memorial Award for Outstanding Design contribution. This award will be determined outside the normal judging guidelines detailed in this document. Nominations will be made by the individual judges for consideration of the Homebuilt Judging Committee. Special Awards: With the approval of the EAA Judging Standards Committee and the Awards Committee special awards may be created to recognize either aircraft, which have special features or characteristics, or individuals whose homebuilt efforts exemplify the spirit of the EAA.

October 2011

HOMEBUILT JUDGING

FORM A

REGISTRATION MARKING ______________________

DESIGN NAME________________________________

EAA # __________________________ (Required)

CATEGORY:

PLANS ________________________________ KITS __________________________________

OWNER’S NAME _______________________________________ CLASSIC ______________________________ ADDRESS ______________________________________________ REPLICA______________________________ ________________________________________________________

ENGINE MANUFACTURE ________________________

E-MAIL ADDRESS ______________________________________

HP RATING _____________________________________

POINTS OVERALL APPEARANCE .........................................................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Aesthetic appeal or presence, neatness and consistency

FUSELAGE.................................................................................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Quality of workmanship, sound construction practice, innovation, improvements, access for maintenance

MAIN LIFTING SURFACES ......................................................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Quality of workmanship, fit & finish, sound construction practice, innovation and improvements

EMPENNAGE/PITCH & YAW SURFACES ...............................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Quality of workmanship, sound construction practices, innovation and improvements, neatness, consistency, fit and finish

LANDING GEAR AND BRAKES................................................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Quality of workmanship, sound construction practice, innovation, improvements, safety provisions

COCKPIT OR CABIN ................................................................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Utilization or instruments and controls, evidence of forethought and planning, safety provisions, neatness, consistency, innovations and improvements, workmanship

POWER PLANT AND DROP ......................................................................................................................1 – 10 _________ Safety provisions, sound practice, workmanship, access for maintenance and preflight, innovations, improvements

FINISH .......................................................................................................................................................1 – 10_________ Consistency and attention to detail

EXECUTION AND INNOVATION.........................................................................................................................1 – 10___________ Difficulty, theme, judges’ discretion

10. DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FARS

Y____

N____ TOTAL ________________

POINTS 10 PERFECT 9 EXCELLENT 8 VERY GOOD 7 GOOD 6 DEFINITELY ABOVE AVERAGE 5 SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE 4 AVERAGE 3 FUNCTIONAL 2 CRUDE 1 UNAIRWORTHY

JUDGE’S REMARKS ____________________________________

________________________________________________________

___________________________________ Judge No.

October 2011

B SHEET N#

Owners Name

Aircraft Type

DATE JUDGES NUMBER

October 2011

VINTAGE AIRCRAFT ANTIQUE, CLASSIC, AND CONTEMPORARY I. FORWARD The purpose of this section of the EAA Official Judging Standards is to lay the groundwork for a viable set of restoration, maintenance, and construction standards against which Vintage aircraft may be judged. The philosophy of these standards must meet two basic criteria. One, the system must be simple. Two, the system must allow consistent and fair competition between common and exotic types. Throughout these standards will be found the one concept that reflects the opinion of the majority of those individuals contacted during the development of these guidelines. That concept is authenticity. The standards are constructed to encourage the individual to complete and maintain a “factory fresh” aircraft. If the individual’s desire is to deviate from this goal for personal whim, or other reasons, the “cost of not conforming to pure authenticity is known in advance.” A portion of the guidelines pertains to the documentation of authenticity as it relates to the aircraft. The exhibitor is encouraged to prove the authenticity with pictures, letters, factory specifications, or any of the means, which will alleviate the need for “judge’s opinion” in determining authenticity. The exhibitor may assist the inspection by the judges. Judges will not remove inspection plates nor open panels without the presence and permission of the owner.

II. DEFINITIONS A. Antique Aircraft An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, on or before August 31, 1945, with the exception of certain Pre-World War II aircraft models, which had only a small post-war production, shall be defined as Antique Aircraft. Examples: Beechcraft Staggerwing, Fairchild 24, and Monocoupe. B. Classic Aircraft An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, on or after September 1, 1945, up to and including December 31, 1955. C. Contemporary Aircraft An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or its licensee, on or after January 1, 1956, up to and including December 31, 1970.

October 2011

D. Continuously Maintained Aircraft An aircraft with proof of construction by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, which has received periodic maintenance, repair, recover, and/or replacement of parts, but which has never been completely disassembled and rebuilt or remanufactured to new or better-than-new condition. E. Restored Aircraft An aircraft with proof of construction by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, that has been disassembled into its component parts, which were then either, replaced, refurbished, or remanufactured to be equal to or as good as new condition. F. Customized Aircraft An aircraft with proof of construction by the original manufacturer, or licensee, which has been obviously modified from its original appearance. Such modifications could include airframe structural changes, paint schemes, interior and upholstery, instrument panel, or engine and cowling, etc. G. Replica Aircraft An aircraft constructed exactly to the original manufacturer’s plans, full size in scale, but not constructed by the original manufacturer or his licensee.

III. SELECTION OF JUDGES Judges will be selected by the Chairmen of the respective Classes subject to approval by the Board of Directors of the Vintage Aircraft Division and the EAA Judging Standards Committee.

IV. QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES A judge shall be a current member in good standing of the EAA and a member of the EAA Vintage Aircraft Association. (Exceptions can be made in special circumstances subject to the approval of the EAA Judging Standards Committee.) Judges will have a thorough knowledge of the aircraft type and vintage being judged, this knowledge having been gained from actual experience flying and/or maintaining such vintage aircraft. Judges qualifications may also be acquired by historical research or actual restoration experience.

V. GUIDELINES FOR JUDGES Judges shall be guided by the following general policy. The prize-winning aircraft is either in, or has been restored to, factory fresh condition. In the case of restored aircraft, the quality and authenticity of the completed restoration is the main issue. The best restoration is the one that most closely approaches factory fresh condition. Authenticity is to be emphasized. Any alterations, for whatever purpose, with the exception of safety items and necessary alterations to meet current FAR requirements, are discouraged. These are covered in the standard deductions on the judging sheet. Duplication of parts should be as close to the original as possible. Penalties are to be given for lack of restraint in “over restoration.” Judging for cleanliness should take into consideration the extent to which the aircraft is used. An authentic restoration should not be penalized when it bears only the oil and grease normally accumulated in operation of the aircraft. This will not excuse a poor presentation for lack of the routine cleaning and polishing which a show plane deserves. Aircraft must be flown to or during the fly-in. The proof of authenticity is to be in the form of a book, which documents the history of the aircraft. The purpose of this presentation book is to authenticate the restoration or preservation of the aircraft. Preferably, photos will document the state of the aircraft before, during, and after the restoration.

October 2011

Replicas shall be judged as a separate category. If there are sufficiently large numbers of replicas entered in competition, they can be sub-categorized into all the classifications and sub-classifications presently used.

October 2011

VI. JUDGING CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS Listed below are complete categories and subdivisions that will apply. The date range of the antique and classic categories has been standardized and will remain intact. The contemporary category date range may be extended as experience dictates. New categories may be initiated as progress warrants. To be eligible for an EAA Award, the owner/operator must be a member in good standing of Experimental Aircraft Association and Vintage Aircraft Association. Awards will be given only where indicated by the presence of aircraft of superior quality, which warrant this level of recognition. Special awards may be given at the discretion of the judges subject to the approval of the Judging Standards Committee. Any vintage aircraft, which at one time was owned and/or operated by any recognized military organization, will be judged on the basis of its former military appearance, unless a comparable civilian model of that aircraft was offered for sale by the original manufacturer or his licensee. The decisions of the judges are final. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system.

ANTIQUE AIRCRAFT GRAND CHAMPION RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION PIONEER AGE (Prior to 1918) Champion Runner Up GOLDEN AGE (1918-1927) Champion Runner Up Outstanding open cockpit biplane Outstanding closed cockpit biplane Outstanding open cockpit monoplane Outstanding closed cockpit monoplane SILVER AGE (1928-1936) Champion Runner Up Outstanding open cockpit biplane Outstanding closed cockpit biplane Outstanding open cockpit monoplane Outstanding closed cockpit monoplane BRONZE AGE (1937-1941) Champion Runner Up Outstanding open cockpit biplane Outstanding closed cockpit biplane Outstanding open cockpit monoplane Outstanding closed cockpit monoplane WORLD WAR II ERA (1942-1945) Champion Runner Up Outstanding open cockpit biplane Outstanding closed cockpit biplane Outstanding open cockpit monoplane Outstanding closed cockpit monoplane

October 2011

CUSTOMIZED AIRCRAFT (Any antique aircraft age) Champion Runner Up Outstanding TRANSPORT CATEGORY Champion Runner Up Outstanding WORLD WAR II MILITARY TRAINER/LIAISON AIRCRAFT Champion Runner Up Outstanding REPLICA AIRCRAFT (Any antique aircraft age) Champion Runner Up Outstanding ANTIQUE-CUSTOM BUILT Champion Runner Up Outstanding CLASSIC AIRCRAFT GRAND CHAMPION RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION CLASS I (0-80 hp) CLASS II (81-150 hp) CLASS III (151-235 hp) CLASS IV (236-up hp CUSTOM CLASS A (0-80 hp) CUSTOM CLASS B (81-150 hp) CUSTOM CLASS C (151-235 hp) CUSTOM CLASS D (236-up hp) OUTSTANDING Aeronca Champ Cessna 190/195 Stinson Aeronca Chief Ercoupe Swift Beech Luscombe Taylorcraft Bellanca Navion Limited Production Cessna 120/140 Piper J-3 Cessna 170/180 Piper-other CONTEMPORARY AIRCRAFT GRAND CHAMPION RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION OUTSTANDING CUSTOMIZED CLASS I SINGLE ENGINE (0-160 hp) CLASS II SINGLE ENGINE (161-230 hp) CLASS III SINGLE ENGINE (231-Up hp) CUSTOM MULTI ENGINE OUTSTANDING Champion Limited Production Beech Single Engine Best Continuously Maintained Beech Multi Engine Bellanca Cessna 150 Cessna 170/172/175 Cessna 180/182/210 Cessna 310 Mooney Piper PA-18 Super Cub Piper PA-22 Tri-Pacer

October 2011

Piper PA-24 Comanche Piper PA-23 Apache-Aztec Piper PA-28 Cherokee

October 2011

VII. FORM EXPLANATION AND USE Judges shall understand that the maximum attainable would be a perfect score grand champion without qualification. It could never be surpassed, and it could only be tied by another perfect score grand champion. Consistency and fairness are to be the main criteria in judging. 1. General Appearance This is the only category, which covers the aircraft in its entirety. Workmanship, authenticity, cleanliness, and maintenance of the aircraft are the criteria. Judges shall consider the aircraft and its airworthiness as a whole and not as individual pieces. A non-authentic color scheme, modern finish, fabric other than original, non-authentic striping or decorations should warrant the use of negative points. Markings, done in good taste, should not be penalized. Aircraft showing use of metal that has replaced the original use of fabric or plywood skinning will be penalized substantially. Use of non-original type nuts, bolts, cable splices, safety wire, etc., will also be penalized. 2. Cockpit Anything visible within the cockpit and passenger compartments comprises the items under inspection in this category. Authenticity shall be stressed in the finish, upholstery (or lack of), instruments, controls, and other components. The operational condition of all components, the workmanship and the attention to detail are considered important. Installation of modern electronics should not be penalized providing the installation does not detract from the authenticity of the instrument panel or other components. Use of â&#x20AC;&#x153;display onlyâ&#x20AC;? radio faceplates as covers for modern electronics installed in original factory-defined positions is encouraged. Deductions shall be made for alterations made to the throttle, stick, or control wheel. Non-authentic upholstery material or patterns should result in deductions. Chroming of parts not originally chromed will earn minus points. 3. Engine Consideration is to be given to the correct engine as well as to its mounting, cowling, accessories, and propeller. Again, authenticity is to be stressed. There should be nothing on or in the engine compartment that was not there originally. Everything is to be installed in a first class manner according to the way it was when it left the factory. Plus points are to be given for authenticity. Any nonoriginal engine, component, accessory, engine mount, propeller, or spinner, as well as any non-authentic chroming will receive minus points. Later or increased HP models of the original engines will receive little or no penalty. 4. Landing gear This category includes brakes, wheels, tires, landing gear fairings, and wheel pants or covers, if any. Smooth tires are to be given plus points if the aircraft was originally equipped with them. If streamlining was accomplished by balsa wood and wrapping, the quality of workmanship and authenticity of this should be considered. If the wheels are retractable, the wheel wells are to be part of the inspection. Credit is to be given for flying an authentic tail skid. Credit is given for tail wheels that are authentic. Points are to be deducted for non-authentic tires or tires of improper size. Non-authentic materials used for fairings of wheel pants are causes for penalty points. 5. Fuselage When judging the fuselage, the first consideration is its general all-over configuration. Where applicable has the restorer been authentic in duplicating the shape via stringers and woodwork? The entire fuselage including all struts, mechanism, gear mountings, and covering is to be examined for workmanship and authenticity. If possible, the judges shall view the fuselage interior for quality of inside restoration. The point should be stressed that it is the exhibitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prerogative to refuse removal of any inspection covers; however, it is urged that the exhibitor be cooperative, since the inside of the fuselage is a major

October 2011

portion of the restoration of an aircraft. The quality of workmanship of formers, woodwork, general finish, inside tubes, pulleys for the cables, the condition of the cables, and the interior finish on the tubes are all points that should be considered. Points will be deducted for fairings, cowlings, or windshields that are non-authentic. Wings and Tail Surfaces Judges shall examine the exterior covering and finish reinforcing tapes, struts braces and wires, ailerons, flaps, navigation lights, fairings to center sections, the center section, gas tank and gas tank cap (if mounted in the center section), wing-walk and wing-to-fuselage fairings. The tail surfaces, including the horizontal stabilizer, elevator, fin, rudder, bracing wires, and attach fittings should all be considered. If the exhibitor, as suggested in the fuselage section, will allow a look inside the wings for condition of the structure, it should be considered. Again, he/she has the right to refuse such entry if it means removing a cover plate, and he/she does not wish to do this; however, an uncooperative exhibitor should be prepared to lose a couple of points. The inside condition of wings will show the quality of the restoration. Judges shall not be looking for â&#x20AC;&#x153;brand newâ&#x20AC;? wings as much as for workmanship in the restoration. The important aspect is to observe that the wings are in a generally new condition showing the wood to be clean and freshly varnished, excellent craftsmanship is evident in the finishing of the fittings, and warped ribs have been replaced. There are many wings flying that have not been restored prior to recovering, or that have never been recovered. Non-authentic wires, struts, pitot tube, landing lights, or other related items will receive negative points. Presentation Book Proof of authenticity contained within the presentation book is to be judged on details of the contents relative to the authenticity of either a continuously maintained or restored aircraft and not on the beauty or artistic quality of the book itself. Degree of Difficulty If it is significant the difficulty involved in the reconstruction of a restored aircraft or in the preservation of a continuously maintained aircraft should be taken into consideration. Change of ownership does not qualify an aircraft to be judged for an award previously won by a past owner for the same aircraft. However, if the aircraft was significantly improved and additional documented restoration work was accomplished, then it could be considered again for judging. In all cases of eligibility, etc., a vote by the majority of judges will be used to decide.

October 2011

EAA VINTAGE AIRCRAFT ASSOCATION

OFFICIAL AIRCRAFT JUDGING AND SCORING FORM

AIRCRAFT ______________ YEAR__________ N# ___________________ CONTEMPORARY ________ ANTIQUE _________ CLASSIC ___________ OWNER ________________________________ EAA # _____________________ CUSTOM _____________ REPLICA _____________ (Required) ADDRESS ____________________________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS _______________________________________________

APPEARANCE ONLY (+) Poor – Fair – Good – Very Good - Excellent

AUTHENTICITY MINUS POINTS (-) Maximum Deduction

GENERAL

0-4

NON-AUTHENTIC COLOR SCHEME

APPEARANCE (20)

5-8

NON-AUTHENTIC FINISH

9 - 12

NON-AUTHENTIC STRIPING

COCKPIT (15)

ENGINE (15)

LANDING GEAR (10)

FUSELAGE (15)

WINGS & TAIL (15)

13 - 16

NON-AUTHENTIC MARKINGS

17 – 20

OTHER



0-3

NON-AUTHENTIC INSTRUMENT

4–6

NON-AUTHENTIC UPHOLSTERY

7–9

NON-AUTHENTIC CHROMING

10 – 12

NON-AUTHENTIC CONTROLS

EX P

13 - 15 0–3

OTHER NON-AUTHENTIC ENGINE

4–6

NON-AUTHENTIC CHROMING

7–9

OTHER

10 –12

EX P

13 - 15 0–2

 12 5 

NON-AUTHENTIC WHEELS

3–4

NON-AUTHENTIC TIRES

5–6

NON-AUTHENTIC TAIL WHEEL

7–8

NON-AUTHENTIC STEERING

EX P

9 - 10 0–3

OTHER NON-AUTHENTIC WINDSHIELD

 3

4–6

NON-AUTHENTIC COWLING

7–9

NON-AUTHENTIC FAIRINGS

10 – 12

OTHER



EX P

13 - 15 0–3

NON-AUTHENTIC WIRES

4–6

NON-AUTHENTIC PILOT

7–9

NON-AUTHENTIC LANDING LIGHTS

OTHER



10 – 12

13 - 15

PRESENTATION BOOK (5)

0–5

DIFFICULTY FACTOR

0-5

(5)

TOTAL APPEARANCE POINTS TOTAL MINUS POINTS (deduct) JUDGING SCORE

TOTAL MINUS POINTS ____________ ____________ ____________

October 2011

JUDGE’S NAME ________________________________________

EAA WARBIRDS OF AMERICA I. FORWARD The purpose of this section of the EAA Official Judging Standards is to lay the groundwork for a viable set of restoration, maintenance, and construction standards against which Warbird aircraft can be judged. The Judging Standards must be simple and, most importantly, allow consistent and fair competition between common and exotic, and between complex and simple Warbird types. In many cases, standards have been adopted which hopefully closely parallel the methods of the other judging areas while allowing for the particular needs of Warbird aircraft. It is noted that by nature, judging is highly subjective and it is hoped that by the use of a judging form, a more objective standard can be realized. We recognize that a restored Warbird aircraft in many cases represents a very substantial investment in time and money and that many rare examples are literally a national treasure. Furthermore, the winning of an award at a major EAA flyin adds immeasurably to the value of an aircraft; therefore, we sincerely hope that this judging guide will provide standards that are fair to all. The Warbird Chief Judge and the EAA Judging Standards Committee prepared these criteria. Warbird judging philosophy is to improve the breed by stimulating competition. Awards will not be given in classes that are not represented by worthy aircraft. Authenticity is to be encouraged. This revised edition reflects additions and changes gained from judging experience and input from the individual Warbird Judges, Directors and Warbird aircraft owners. In all cases, we are judging the aircraft only. No consideration will be given to which individual, organization, museum, etc. accomplished the restoration or to its cost. Judging will be as objective as possible and the winning aircraft should represent the very best example of workmanship and authenticity. The awards recognize the workmanship of the restorer, whether that person is the owner or a professional restorer. The decisions of the judges are final. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system. EAA Warbirds of America has assembled a talented and objective team of professionals that look forward to judging your aircraft each year. The latest revision to this document is available from EAA Warbird Headquarters: Warbirds@eaa.org and EAA Warbirds website: www.warbirds-eaa.org

October 2011

II. DEFINITIONS A. Warbird Aircraft: All ex-military aircraft. This specifically means an aircraft that was operated by the military of any country. This excludes civilian equivalents of military aircraft, or developmental aircraft that have never been operated in a military capacity. B. World War II Warbird: Aircraft in this judging category must have had an equivalent type aircraft operational in military service between Sept. 1, 1939 and July 26, 1945. C. Military Prototype Aircraft: There will be a special judging category for rare military prototype aircraft, which were developed for military usage, but never went into active military service. D. Reproduction Warbird: Aircraft built to resemble a Warbird. These aircraft are of the same scale and construction technique as the original. These aircraft are structurally and aerodynamically identical to the original version. (See AIRCRAFT ELIGIBILITY)

III. QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES Judges shall be EAA Warbirds of America members in good standing. Judges shall have a thorough knowledge of the aircraft types to be judged, this knowledge being gained from actual flying experience, maintenance, or restoration of Warbird Aircraft. Qualifications may also include historical research or experience as a licensed aircraft and power plant mechanic or aircraft inspector. Judges shall be provided with an identifying badge, which will be worn while judging.

IV. AIRCRAFT ELIGIBILITY Only aircraft registered by a member in good standing of Experimental Aircraft Association and EAA Warbirds of America requesting judging will be judged. Opening and closing times and dates for judging will be plainly posted at Warbird Headquarters. Aircraft arriving after the judging deadline will not be judged. No single aircraft will be judged in two major categories such as Warbirds and Vintage at any one convention. In the case of AirVenture EAA Fly-in and Sun â&#x20AC;&#x2122;n Fun Fly-in or other major fly-ins that may apply, the dates and times will be published in the Warbird magazine or Warbird newsletter prior to these air shows. Furthermore, aircraft to be judged at these air shows must be parked in the designated Warbird parking area during the fly-in event. Exemptions to this, such as safety considerations (i.e. helicopters) must be coordinated through the Chief Judge. These aircraft must be available to be judged over a reasonable length of time. Change of ownership does not qualify an aircraft to be judged for an award previously won by a past owner for the same aircraft. However, if the aircraft was significantly improved and additional documented restoration work was accomplished, then it could be considered again for judging. In all cases of eligibility, etc., a vote by the majority of judges will be used to decide. Full-scale Reproduction aircraft will be regarded as Warbirds. Owner/exhibitors of reduced scale Warbird replicas will be regarded as homebuilts and be judged in the Homebuilt category. The general rules, which prohibit any aircraft from being judged in two divisions, will apply.

October 2011

Previous Winners: Aircraft, which have won an award at a given show, are not eligible to win the same or a lesser award at the same show for a period of seven years. Two awards that do not adhere to this rule are the Returning Grand Champion Award and Returning Best of Class. These two awards can be won multiple times if the aircraft continues to meet the judging criteria. Returning award winners in these two categories will constitute their own two separate classes. An aircraft can win a higher category if it has a sufficient point score to carry it to the higher award status. Once the aircraft has won Grand Champion, it would not be eligible for an award except the Returning Grand Champion Award for a period of 7 years. When this 7-year period has ended it would again be able to win any applicable award. Past Grand Champions and past Best of Class winners will compete in these two categories using the standard judging criteria to determine a winner for Returning Grand Champion and the Returning Best of Class award.

V. JUDGING OPERATIONAL FORMAT When possible, Judges shall attempt to judge an aircraft at a time for the convenience of the owner. The aircraft owner-pilots or his/her representative must be present at the time their aircraft is judged to open the cockpit and access panels, etc. if necessary and to answer any questions the judges might have regarding restoration details, systems, technical aspects, aircraft history, etc. A judging form will be used to give as objective a means of scoring and determining awards as possible. However, this form need only be utilized for those aircraft that are definitely of award-winning caliber and definitely in competition. Owners, pilots, and restorers are encouraged to ask the judges what they should accomplish to make their restoration a better aircraft and more competitive. Minimum Score: The minimum score to be eligible to receive an award is 80 points. Scores are totaled by the individual judges and then averaged. No award will be given in any category (i.e. Best T-6, Best Jet, Best Transport, etc.) if the top scoring aircraft receives a score of less than 80 points. It is strongly believed by the Judging Committee that an award given by the EAA Warbirds of America is prestigious and that awards should not be given in any category where a sufficiently outstanding aircraft (80 points or more) is not entered. To do so would only dilute and diminish the significance of Warbird awards. Authenticity: One of the goals of the EAA Warbirds of America is to preserve, in original flying condition, aircraft of our military heritage. Therefore, authenticity is an important consideration in judging. Judges shall give credit whenever possible for restoration details that were present on Warbird aircraft in military service. Examples are bomb racks, guns, gun sights, operational turrets, original cockpit configurations, radio gear, etc. However, due to the many in-service modifications, field modifications, paint schemes, etc., authenticity is a difficult factor to assess with Warbird aircraft. Furthermore, due to their unique operating characteristics, and necessary â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;civilianizingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, a truly stock original, unmodified ex-military aircraft is truly a rare bird. Therefore, on the objective point scoring form, points will be added for authenticity but not subtracted for lack of authenticity. It is felt that an owner should not be penalized for adding necessary radio and instrument modifications (to fit todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s complex ATC environment) and safety and warning systems (i.e. better brakes, instrument lighting, etc.). Authenticity is considered more important when judging external markings and paint schemes. It is the responsibility of the aircraft owner to provide the judges with proof of authenticity. In summary, if two Warbird aircraft are identical in workmanship, etc., the one that is the most authentic will be judged the highest.

October 2011

Depth of Restoration: Acknowledges the greater efforts that are being taken during restoration. To maximize points, the owner must be able to document the state of the aircraft prior to and during the restoration effort. It is also suggested that the owner have a “Presentation Book” containing details and pictures of the plane’s restoration, pictures of areas in the aircraft that are not readily accessible, historical research data, and any information that would validate the authenticity of the pain scheme and markings, etc. Difficulty Factor: Due to the extremely wide range of aircraft types which vary greatly not only in cost but in sheer scope and complexity of the restoration (i.e. T-34 to B-24), it becomes very difficult, for example, to compare a perfect restoration of a T-6 with a perfect restoration of a B-25 when comparing the two for Grand Champion. Therefore, a difficulty factor based on the type of aircraft has been determined and this number, from 1-10 will be added to the total score when comparing dissimilar aircraft for an award for which they are both eligible.

Difficulty Points

Type Aircraft

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

L-1, L-2, L-5, L-18, PT-19, PT-22, BT-13, Stearman, N3N, L-13, L-19/O-1, LC-126, O-1, T-41 T-34, O-2, Yak-52/CJ-6, F4B/P-12 T-6, F-3F, J2F, O2U, P-26, C-45, UC-78 P-51, Hellcat, Wildcat, P-40, P-39, P-63, Bearcat, Spitfire, AT-11 TBM, P-47, T-28, Vampire, Pinto Jet, L-29, Tigercat, Fouga Corsair, Sea Fury, T-33, T-37, L-39, Firefly, Tudor Skyraider, P-38, P-82, Panther, F-86, P-80, T-38, B-25, C-47, A-4, A-26 9 B-26, A-20, PBY, C-46, F-4, B-23, C-117, Ju-52 10 B-17, B-24, B-29, B-50, C-54, C-69, C-118, C-121 For Warbird aircraft not covered by the above table, the appropriate difficulty factor will be assigned by a majority of the judges. It is recommended that aircraft be grouped by type on the form to aid in comparing scores of similar types for Best of Type awards. The scores for the same aircraft as determined by each Judge will then be totaled and the Grand Champion should be the plane with the highest overall total score (including difficulty points). Reserve Grand Champion would have the second highest. Best of Type (i.e. Best T-28 would be the T-28 with the highest total score, not including difficulty points) among other T-28s, as indicated by the sum of the individual Judges’ score sheets.

October 2011

VI. JUDGING CATEGORIES CATEGORY General Appearance: This covers the aircraft in its entirety; workmanship, cleanliness, maintenance, overall appeal. Paint scheme should be appropriate for type and model, i.e. a Navy T-28 or SNJ should be consistent with the period, and the squadron insignia, etc. should correspond to assigned ship, command, etc. However, they need not represent an exact copy of a previous Warbird, but rather painted as representative of that time period, type model and service. (No deduction for glossy paint as this is an example of an item that improves aircraft maintenance.) No deduction for the normal amount of dirt and soil accumulated in obvious use. These are flying aircraft and should be judged accordingly. Fuselage: Cleanliness, workmanship, interior details, wiring, painting interior and exterior, control cables, safety of flight items, etc. If possible, the judges should view the fuselage interior for quality of inside restoration. It is the owner/pilot’s prerogative to remove or not remove inspection covers. However, it is urged that pilots cooperate since the inside of the fuselage is the major portion of the restoration of an aircraft. Landing Gear and Wheel Wells: Cleanliness, workmanship, routing of hoses and lines, condition of tires, brakes, etc. Wings and Tail Surfaces: Workmanship, painting, cleanliness, safety of flight items. Engine and Accessory Section: Cleanliness, safety of flight items, proper safe tying, cotter pins, linkages, lines, and hoses in good repair, etc. Cockpit: Workmanship, detail, cleanliness, necessary proper and operating instrumentation, placards, markings, wiring harnesses, cockpit layout, lighting, etc Authenticity: Plus points only — primary attention to external details, paint schemes, etc. No deduction for necessary modernization of radios and systems. Points are also given for details such as guns, bombs, bomb racks, gun sights, original cockpit fixtures, panel layout, radios, etc.

MAXIMUM POINTS

10 11 10 12

20 Paint and Markings 1-5 pts. Cockpit 1-5 pts. Engine, prop, accessory section 1-5 pts. Airframe Components (wings, cowls, fairings, etc.) 1-5 pts. Depth of Restoration: This category will evaluate how far down the aircraft was taken during its restoration and how well this was documented. Difficulty Points: Difficulty points will be assigned as per those listed in the “Difficulty Factor” above. They are to be used only when comparing dissimilar aircraft that are in contention for the same award, i.e. Grand Champion and Reserve Grand Champion. Obviously, all aircraft of the same type receive the same difficulty factor, (i.e. all T-6/SNJ/Harvard’s shall receive +4 pts). Note: A perfect score is 100, plus the difficulty points when applicable.

October 2011

VII. AWARDS GIVEN BY THE EAA WARBIRDS OF AMERICA Grand Champion Warbird* Grand Champion Post-WWII Warbird* Reserve Grand Champion Warbird* Reserve Grand Champion Post-WWII Warbird* Returning Grand Champion WWII Returning Grand Champion Post-WWII Best P-51 Best T-28 Best T-6 Best T-34 Best Liaison/Observation Best Jet Best Bomber Best Transport Best Military Classic Best Helicopter Best Military Prototype Best Reproduction Warbird Returning Best of Class Phoenix Award Most Authentic Judges Choice Preservation *Denotes Difficulty Factor added to final score to determine placing. Special Awards to be given as deemed necessary by the judges such as Most Rare, Most Improved or Special Recognition for a deserving restoration that does not fit into a specific category may be designated. Gold/Silver Wrenches Award: Recognition is also given to the person or persons responsible for the actual work and labor that brought the restoration to reality. This recognition will consist of a “Golden Wrench Award” for the four top awards, which represent Grand Champions and Reserve Grand Champion in both WWII and Post WWII categories, and “Silver Wrench Awards” for each Best of Class. Current practice is to only recognize the gold and silver wrench awards at EAA’s AirVenture To qualify to have a “Best of Class” award, at least three eligible aircraft of that type must be present for judging, i.e. three T-6s entered that have not won previous awards. Furthermore, should three Warbird aircraft of a type not previously listed (i.e. P-40) be present and eligible for judging, then an award will be given for Best of that Type. In the case of Bombers, Transports and Jets, it is recognized that due to their size, cost and rarity, it is unlikely that there could be three present of any one type. Therefore, all transports, bombers and jets will be judged regardless of type or number present. Example: Two C-47s and a UC-78 would be judged together for Best Transport; an F-86, T-37 and T-33 would be judged together for Best Jet.

October 2011

MAX PTS

JUDGING CATEGORY

YOUR SCORE

Aircraft Judging Scoresheet EAA / Warbirds of America N number:

1. General Appearance

2. Fuselage

3. Landing Gear / Wheel Wells

4. Wings and Tail Surface

5. Engine & Accessory Section

6. Cockpit

7a. Authenticity: Paint & Marking

7b. Authenticity: Cockpit

7c. Authenticity: Engine, Prop, and Accessory section

7d. Authenticity: Airframe Components

8. Depth of Restoration

Aircraft Model: Aircraft Name/ Nose Art/ Tail Code: Category: Owner / Hometown: Restorer / Hometown: Date and Time Judging Started: Owner / representative present for judging: ___Yes, then continue schedule

____No, then re-

Difficulty Points: 1. L-1, L-2, L-5, L-18, PT-19, PT-22 2. BT-13, Stearman, N3N, L-13, L-19/O-1, LC-126, T-41 3. O-2, T-34, Yak-52/Cj6, F4B/P-12 4. T-6/SNJ, C-45, UC-78, F3F, J2F, O2U, P-26 5. P-39, P-40, P-51, P-63, FIF, F6F, F4F, Spitfire, AT-11 6. P-47, TBM, L-29, T-28, Vampire, Pinto Jet, Fouga 7. F4U/FG1, SeaFury, T-33, T-37, L-39, Firefly, Tudor 8. F-86, P-38, P-80, P-82, T-38, F9F, AD, B-25, C-47, A-4, A26 9. A-20, B-23, B-26, C-46, C-117, F-4, PBY, Ju-52 10. B-17, B-24, B-29, B-50, C-54, B-69, C-118, C-121

Sub- Total Difficulty Points

Select from list. If not on list see Chief Judge

Grand Total Comments and remarks:

Additional comments on back.

Judges Signature, Printed Name, and Date:

October 2011

ULTRALIGHT/LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT I. REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTION OF JUDGES The Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft General Chairman and the Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Chief Judge with the approval of the Chairman of the Judging Standards Committee will select Judges. Only those individuals who possess the qualifications detailed below shall be invited to be Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Judges. A. The individual shall be a current member in good standing of the Experimental Aircraft Association. B. The individual shall possess knowledge of Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft construction methods, workmanship requirements, and safety requirements. C. The following specific qualifications may be utilized by the Chairman and Chief Judge to determine if an individual meets the above requirements. 1. Experience gained by the construction of an Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft. 2. Experience gained by flight time in an Ultralight or Light-Sport Aircraft. 3. Membership in an Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Chapter of the EAA. 4. Possession of any government A&P license. D. The individual shall possess the personal dedication to pursue the task of judging diligently to conclusion with a minimum of supervision. Judges shall be chosen from as many diversified areas of the country as possible to provide a broad experience from the various areas where Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft activity exists. The Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Judging Committee shall consist of the Chief Judge, and the duly designated Judges. The decisions of the judges are final. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system.

October 2011

II. JUDGING OPERATIONAL FORMAT The following represents the general format of the Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Aircraft judging at EAA fly-ins. A. A daily planning meeting shall be convened by the Chief Judge each day of the fly-in at 8:00 AM or other time as determined appropriate or necessary. The purpose will be to discuss operating practices, provide instructions to the judges, and to review ratings. B. Judging shall be initiated immediately following the planning meeting. C. Judging shall start no later than the morning of the second day of the convention and continue until the day before the Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft awards are to be presented. At that time, the final decisions are made so as to provide time for the Awards Chairman to have the appropriate trophies prepared. D. Each Judge is expected to judge for a minimum of four hours each day or as determined necessary until all Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft have been judged, and will continue to participate until all awards are assigned. E. Judges shall wear judges’ badges or hats while judging. F. Judges shall operate in teams of three whenever possible. G. Judges shall utilize scoring forms as described in Section IV of this section. In the event electronic judging procedures are utilized judges shall utilize the handheld computers provided. H. Scoring forms shall be turned in each evening to the designated person. I. No less than three Judges must judge an Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft in order to make it eligible for an award. (This requirement may be reduced if determined appropriate by the EAA Judging Standards Committee.)

III. AIRCRAFT TO BE JUDGED A. Registration: Only Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircrafts, which have been registered at Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Aircraft Registration, will be judged. At the time the plane is registered, the owner/pilot shall indicate on the form if he/she wishes to have the craft judged. At that time he/she will be given a “Judge Me Please” sticker, which is to be affixed to the aircraft in plain view. In order for the aircraft to be judged, the owner/exhibitor will be required to sign a statement on the judging application form certifying that the aircraft meets all the requirements of Part 103. The following information will be required on the registration form: 1. EAA Membership Number. (EAA membership is required in order to be judged.) 2. Category: Ultralight or Light-Sport Aircraft. 3. Aircraft registration. a. N # (if applicable) b. Other reg. nos.: EAA, USUA, ASC. c. Aircraft name and manufacturer. d. Color. e. Number of seats. f. Empty weight. g. Fuel capacity. h. Max speed level flight. Note: The above statistics may be published with regard to the award winning aircraft.

October 2011

B. Definitions Ultralights are those aircraft, which qualify under FAR Part 103. Judges may use their own discretion in determining that the aircraft complies; this may include weighing the aircraft. Light-Sport Aircraft are those aircraft other than factory built, that are certified (N-numbered) Experimental Amateur Built or experimental lightsport. Antique Ultralights are those vehicles that have been flown for at least 25 years. These aircraft have not had major changes to their airframe or engine configuration installation. Minor changes due to normal repair or restoration work is acceptable. C. Judging Sticker The “Judge Me” sticker has three boxes for the judges to initial when each one completes his judging. D. An Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft in order for an award must have flown at this convention, or verification that it has flown such as a photograph or signed log entry, must be provided. E. Only owner built Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft will be eligible for awards. Factory built aircraft are not eligible. F. Aircraft will not be judged in two major categories, e.g. Light-Sport Aircraft and Homebuilt. In order to be judged as a Light-Sport Aircraft, the aircraft must be parked, as well as registered, in the Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft area. G. Any aircraft, which has won an award at the fly-in, will in future years be eligible for consideration only for a higher award. H. Change of ownership does not qualify an aircraft to be judged for an award previously won by a past owner for the same aircraft. However, if the aircraft was significantly improved and additional documented restoration work was accomplished, then it could be considered again for judging. In all cases of eligibility, etc., a vote by the majority of judges will be used to decide.

IV. JUDGING PRACTICES A. Scoring System A numerical judging system is utilized in which the judges rate the craft and their components numerically and the sum totals of these scores are used to determine the winners. B Numerical rating forms will be provided for the judges’ use. A copy is included in this manual. C. Judges may develop his/her own technique for judging. The individual technique is of small consequence so long as the objectives of the judging program are met. D. Impartiality It is of prime importance that each aircraft be treated in an unbiased manner. Judges may disqualify themselves if there is any factor that would tend to affect their judgment. E. It is recognized that aircraft are meant to be flown and enjoyed. Allowances will be made for exhaust discoloration and minor traces of flight. F. There will be no tie. In the event of tie scores, the chief judge will be the tiebreaker.

October 2011

G. Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft will be judged on the basis of the following qualities as these apply to the components listed in the Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft judging and scoring form. 1 General appearance. 2. Safety. 3. Workmanship. 4. Adherence to standard aircraft mechanical practices where applicable. 5. Compliance with applicable FAA regulations. 6. Neatness and fit. 7. Originality and innovation. H. Disqualification A duly registered Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft may be disqualified by a two-thirds majority vote of the judging staff.

V. AWARDS The following awards are available to be given: Light-Sport Aircraft Grand Champion .................................................................Gold Lindy Reserve Grand Champion................................................. Silver Lindy Honorable Mention ....................................................................Plaque Ultralight Grand Champion .................................................................Gold Lindy Reserve Grand Champion................................................. Silver Lindy Honorable Mention ....................................................................Plaque Antique Ultralight Champion......................................................Plaque Flex Wing Champion ..................................................................................Plaque Honorable Mention ....................................................................Plaque Each of these awards will be given only if there are aircraft on the field that qualify for the award. With the approval of the Judging Standards Committee and the Awards Committee, special awards may be given when warranted.

October 2011

EAA ULTRALIGHT/LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT

JUDGING MASTER NUMBER ________

(REQUEST FOR JUDGING) INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Review Official EAA Judging Manual (found at UL HQ – just ask!). 2. 3. 4. 5.

REMEMBER:

Complete this form. Bring form to Judges’ Office or UL HQ. Receive Judge’s Registration (Master) number. Receive “Judge Me Please” sticker.

If you request Judging, prepare your aircraft and remain at the fly-in until the AWARDS are presented.

Please PRINT the following information CLEARLY so we can READ it! ULTRALIGHT/LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT INFORMATION CATEGORY:

LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT_____ULTRALIGHT ____ ANTIQUE ULTRALIGHT _____

FAA N# ____________ OTHER # EAA/USUA/ASC NUMBER)

AIRCRAFT NAME ________________________MANUFACTURER ________________ AIRCRAFT COLOR ____________________________________NUMBER OF SEATS___________________________

EMPTY WEIGHT ___________ FUEL CAPACITY ___________ MAX CRUISE SPEED _____________ ENGINE MANUFACTURER____________________________________________HORSEPOWER______Did you build or restore the above aircraft? Yes_____ No _____ Are you a manufacturer or dealer for this aircraft? Yes_____ No _____

I hereby certify that the ULTRALIGHT/LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT conforms with the rules and regulations of the category selected above. PARKING LOCATION:

AREA

****************************************************** (Be specific – PLEASE) Do not move your aircraft to another spot until all judging has terminated.

ROW PILOT AND OWNER INFORMATION

SPOT ________

NAME _________________________________________________EAA Number__________________________________ (Required)

Home Address: Street______________________________City___________________State___ Zip Code___________

_______________E-MAIL ADDRES________________________________ Your location while at Oshkosh ____________________________________________________________________________ Please be sure you are familiar with all EAA General and Ultralight/Light-Sport Aircraft Judging Rules. Check with any Judge or UL HQ.

October 2011

OFFICIAL AIRCRAFT JUDGING AND SCORING FORM ULTRALIGHT/LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT MASTER NUMBER/SHEET NUMBER _______________________ DATE ____________________________ AIRCRAFT MAKE __________________________ LOCATION ______________________________ COLOR ___________________________________ OWNER ___________________________________ EAA NUMBER ___________________________ (Required)

LOCAL ADDRESS ___________________________________________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS_________________________________ ENGINE DATA:

MANUFACTURER ________________________________ H.P. / CC _________________________________________

Poor – Fair – Good – Very Good – Excellent P

0 -2

5-8

3-4

9 - 12

5–6

GENERAL

0-4

APPEARANCE

F G VG

13 - 16

7–8

17 – 20

9 - 10

COCKPIT &

0-3

CONTROLS

4–6

7–9

ENGINE (S)

LANDING GEAR

10 – 12

13 - 15

WINGS

0-3

4–6

7–9

10 - 12

13 – 15

0–3

TIP RUDDERS

0–3

4–6

WARPING SYSTEM

4–6

7–9

CANARD, ELEVONS

7–9

10 –12

RUDDERVATORS

10 – 12

13 - 15

CONVENTIONAL 3 AXIS

13 - 15

JUDGES NUMBER ___________

JUDGING TEAM _______________

JUDGES NAME___________________________________ TOTAL POINTS ________________

October 2011

ROTORCRAFT I. REQUIREMENTS FOR ROTORCRAFT JUDGES A. The Judging Chairman shall be selected by the Rotorcraft Chairman subject to the approval of the Judging Standards Committee. B. Judges shall be selected by the Judging Chairman subject to the approval of the EAA Judging Standards Committee and the Rotorcraft Chairman. C. Rotorcraft Judges shall have the following qualifications: 1. Current EAA membership in good standing. 2. Knowledge of rotorcraft construction methods and safety requirements, along with workmanship and flying. 3. Experience should have come from building and flying of the rotorcraft type he is to judge. 4. Active participant or enthusiast in the rotorcraft movement. D. The judges are to be aware that they represent the EAA and act accordingly. They will be diplomatic in their dealings with the exhibitors and constructive in their criticism.

II. JUDGING A planning meeting shall be held each day of the fly-in at an agreed time to discuss operating practices and review ratings. Judging shall be done each day of the fly-in to accommodate the new arrivals and until all craft have been judged. Judging shall be completed and final decisions made by the morning of the day before the awards ceremonies so that the Awards Chairman will have time to prepare the awards. Only rotorcraft that are registered at aircraft registration will be judged. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Judge Meâ&#x20AC;? stickers will be provided to the exhibitors and must be applied to the craft in order to be judged. The judges shall initial the sticker after inspection of the machine. Judges shall use the rating form provided in this book. Three or more judges shall be used. The decisions of the judges are final. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system. It is of prime importance that each aircraft presented for judging be treated in an unbiased manner. Judges who consider their review of a particular aircraft as biased, either due to personal acquaintance with the builder, or personal knowledge of its construction may excuse themselves from judging that aircraft. Each aircraft shall be judged on all features that are visible. The judge may request the owner to open the cockpit, engine cowl or other access panels to view internal appointments of structure. Such a request should be made by at least two judges in order to prevent repeated requests and inconvenience to the owner. Refusal by the owner to do so will leave the judges to their own discretion regarding these areas, and may result in point deductions.

October 2011

Each judge may develop his/her own technique for judging. The technique of judging is of small consequence so long as the objectives of the judging program are met. Most owners are proud of their aircraft and spend considerable effort to remove dust, oil and exhaust stains from their aircraft. An aircraft, which is obviously not cared for, should be downgraded. Aircraft are intended to fly and allowances will be made for discoloration and the inevitable minor traces of flight. An aircraft need not be absolutely new in order to compete. Each of the listed awards will be given only if there is present on the field an aircraft that qualifies for the award. With the approval of the Judging Standards Committee and the Awards Committee, special awards may be given when warranted.

III. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS The aircraft should be amateur built. For an aircraft to be classed by the FAA as Amateur Built, 51% of its construction must have been accomplished by the owner/builder. The judges shall be alert for those aircraft that have not been built by the exhibitor. These craft do not represent an accomplishment of the owner and should be down rated. The owner is encouraged to document the building process and to bring that documentation, especially including photos, to the fly-in for the benefit of the judges. In particular, the logbooks and registration certificate should also be available to the judges. Without such documentation, points may be deducted, particularly in comparison with other aircraft with which there is conclusive documentation of the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the major part of the construction. The rotorcraft must be a flying machine. All of the FAA required flying hours must have been flown off in order to be eligible for any of the awards. However, rotorcraft need not have flown at the convention in order to be eligible. Any rotorcraft, which has won an award at the fly-in, will in the future be eligible only for a higher award. Change of ownership does not qualify an aircraft to be judged for an award previously won by a past owner for the same aircraft. However, if the aircraft was significantly improved and additional documented restoration work was accomplished, then it could be considered again for judging. In all cases of eligibility, etc., a vote by the majority of judges will be used to decide.

IV. JUDGING CRITERIA A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I.

General appearance Power plant installation Rotor or tail assembly Wheel and landing gear Cockpit and controls Rotor and propeller Standard aircraft construction procedures Judging of rotorcraft relies heavily on the knowledge and experience of the judges, and these guidelines are only to help as a general rule. General: These rotorcraft are flying craft and so consideration will be given for the normal evidence of flight.

October 2011

Difficulty Points: A maximum of 5 bonus points may be given when comparing dissimilar rotorcraft based on the differences in complexity and construction effort involved. K. Aircraft owner must be a current EAA member in good standing.

V. AWARDS A. B. C. D.

GRAND CHAMPION............................................................... (Gold Lindy) RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION ........................................... (Silver Lindy) CHAMPION..........................................................................(Bronze Lindy) THE “KEN BROCK OUTSTANDING WORKMANSHIP AWARDS” -- one or two at the judges’ discretion.......................(Plaques)

October 2011

EAA ROTORCRAFT JUDGING AND SCORING FORM A SHEET NO. _____________ ROTORCRAFT MAKE

N-NUMBER

DATE ___________ COLOR

ENGINE DATA -- MFG. _______________________________H.P. __________________ OWNER ________________________________________EAA # ______________________ (Required)

ADDRESS __________________________________________________________________ PHONE #

E-MAIL ADDRESS _________

__________

SCORING POOR 0-4

FAIR 5-7

GOOD 8 - 10

V. GOOD 11 - 13

EXCELLENT 14 - 16

GENERAL APPEARANCE COCKPIT AND CONTROLS ENGINE PACKAGE ROTOR BLADES AND HEAD ASS’Y LANDING GEAR TAIL OR TAIL ROTOR ASS’Y

JUDGES NAMES

COMMENTS

_________________________________

______________________________

_________________________________

______________________________

_________________________________

______________________________

October 2011

TOTAL POINTS

SUB TOTAL

SEAPLANE I. FOREWORD The purpose of this section is to set the standards by which seaplanes are to be defined and judged, and to outline the standards by which the judging process is to be done including the qualifications of the judges. In Seaplane Judging, the principle guidelines are workmanship and maintenance.

II. DEFINITIONS A. A seaplane is any aircraft fitted to be operated off of water. It may be type certificated or a homebuilt licensed as an Experimental, or an Ultralight. B. Amphibian refers to any seaplane, which is also capable of being operated off of land or water without having to remove or change its undercarriage. C. Ultralight refers to those seaplanes, which qualify under FAR Part 103.

III. GENERAL A. A current EAA membership by the owner is a prerequisite for eligibility of an aircraft to be judged, and the EAA membership number must appear on the Pilot Registration Form. B. Among certificated aircraft, only those that are 25 years old or older as of start of the convention will be eligible for judging. C. Any aircraft parked at Wittman Regional Airport during EAA AirVenture will be regarded as belonging to the category of the area in which it is displayed. For example, the Seaplane Judges will judge amphibians that are parked in the amphibian area at Wittman Regional Airport as amphibians. Those amphibians whose owners elect to park other than in the amphibian area will only be judged by the Seaplane Judges if a specific request is made to the Seaplane Judging Chairman and the aircraft has not or will not be judged in their appropriate category such as antique, classic, homebuilt or ultralight. However, the Homebuilt or Vintage Judges, being aware of the following rule, will judge a seaplane parked at the seaplane base, if the owner chooses so. D. Aircraft may not be judged in two categories at any one fly-in. (For example, having been judged at Wittman Regional Airport during EAA AirVenture, the aircraft is not eligible to be judged at the EAA Seaplane Base even though it may be moved there during the fly-in.)

IV. SELECTION OF JUDGES A. The EAA Seaplane Judging Chairman shall be selected by the EAA Seaplane Chairman subject to approval by the EAA Judging Standards Committee. B. The EAA Seaplane Judges shall be selected by the EAA Seaplane Judging Chairman subject to the approval of the EAA Judging Standards Committee and/or the EAA Seaplane Chairman. C. EAA Seaplane Judging Chairman and EAA Seaplane Judges are required to be a current EAA member in good standing.

V. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE JUDGES A. Judges shall be a current member in good standing of the EAA. B. Judges must possess a sound background and knowledge of aircraft construction and maintenance techniques and in particular as these apply to seaplanes.

October 2011

C. The following qualifications may be utilized to determine if an individual meets the requirements of paragraph B above: 1. Aircraft and Powerplant Mechanics License 2. Aircraft Inspector License 3. EAA Technical Counselor 4. Experience gained by work in metal, wood, and composite construction and restoration of aircraft. 5. No one will be eligible to be a judge in a year in which he/she has an airplane to be judged. D. Judges shall be dedicated to the task, fair and impartial, and aware that he or she is a representative of the EAA and conduct him or her with discretion and dignity. Any judge who is in any position by which he could be regarded as biased regarding an aircraft such as by friendship or by a prior prejudice should disqualify himself from judging that aircraft. E. EAA Seaplane Judging Chairman shall not have a vote except in the case of a tie. F. The decisions of the judges are final. In all categories, there will be no tied score. The chief judge has the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. This is the only vote the chief judge has in the scoring system.

VI. JUDGING OPERATIONAL FORMAT A. Daily planning meetings of the judges shall be convened until the final decisions/selections are determined. B Judges shall wear a badge or identify themselves as judges while acting in the judging capacity. C Judges shall operate in teams of two or three whenever possible. D. Aircraft will be judged by scoring according to a score sheet or in electronic form using hand-held portable computers. Each aircraft shall then be assigned a final score representing the average scores of at least three judges.

VII. JUDGING PRACTICES A. Aircraft will be judged on all features that are visible. Judges may request the owner to open the cockpit, engine cowl or other areas. This should be done only when at least two judges are available. B. Points will be given according to the criteria in the judging form. Authenticity shall be one of the factors in the judging. No deduction shall result from changes, which enhance the safety and utility of the aircraft such as modern radios and navigation equipment, fire control systems, and crash restraints. No deduction will be given for increased engine size or float replacement with modern floats, or retraction of wing floats. Otherwise, plus points will be given for original equipment. C. Most owners are proud of their aircraft and maintain their aircraft as well as possible. Aircraft are intended to fly, and in particular seaplanes will exhibit the special effects of their use. Those unavoidable indications of normal use will not detract from the scores. D. Judges are encouraged to put their own comments on the judging forms regarding any unique or special items noted during the judging which are deemed important to the understanding of his rating. Their remarks will be available in the judges meetings for the purpose of remembering and pointing out specific items that may have a bearing on the overall scoring. E. Consistency and Fairness are the essential elements of the judging process and will be strived for to the utmost.

October 2011

VIII. JUDGING CRITERIA A. General Appearance This covers the aircraft in its entirety. This applies to workmanship, cleanliness, maintenance, and overall appeal. Included in this is the airworthiness of the aircraft as a whole. Consistency is a prime factor. The airplane need not necessarily have an exceptionally polished or shiny finish, but it should be consistent. B. Cockpit Anything visible within the cockpit and passenger compartment comprises the items under inspection in this category. Workmanship including the finish, upholstery or lack of, instruments, controls and other components. Safety equipment including crash restraints, fire control equipment and any other safety factors should be given significant weight. Installation of modern electronics should not be penalized. C. Engine Consideration should be given to the workmanship and conformity to standard aircraft procedures as applied to the engine, propeller, mounting, cowling, firewall and accessories. D. Undercarriage (floats) This category should include the floats or hull, brakes, wheels, tires, landing gear, float struts, all appropriate fairings and water rudders. Minor paint scratches on the hull or sundry attach fittings, excess grease on wheels or fittings or general lack of cleanliness should be penalized. E. Fuselage The first consideration should be its overall general configuration. The entire fuselage including all struts, mechanism, gear mountings, and covering should be examined for workmanship and appropriate cleanliness. If possible the judges should view the fuselage interior for quality of maintenance or restoration. The point should be stressed that it is the owner/exhibitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prerogative to refuse removal of any inspection covers or other access; however, it is urged that the exhibitor be cooperative since the inside of the fuselage is a major portion of the building and maintenance of a seaplane. The quality of workmanship of the formers, woodwork, general finish, inside tubes, pulleys, cables and fairleads and interior finish on the tubes or skin are all points that should be considered. F Wings and Tail Surfaces Judges should examine the exterior covering and finish, struts, braces and wires, ailerons, flaps, navigation lights, fairings, and gas tank/cover and cap. The tail surfaces including the bracing wires and attach fittings should all be considered. Internal examination is desirable. G. Presentation Book If the airplane is a homebuilt, a restoration, or a rare conversion, a presentation book may be judged on the details of the contents as they relate to authenticity, research construction or assembly, previous aircraft use and prior history or other pertinent details. Points will not be earned on the beauty or artistic quality of the book. H. Cleanliness The aircraft should be clean and ready for show. Consideration should be given to the difficulty of cleaning a high wing aircraft on floats or a high wing amphibian. Points should not be deducted for bugs on leading edges, which are unreachable if they are the result of the one flight to the show competition.

October 2011

IX. AWARDS Awards will be given in the following classifications with the exception that should any class not be represented by an aircraft worthy of receiving the award, it need not be awarded. Conversely, EAA Seaplane Judges may give special awards with the approval of the EAA Judging Standards Committee when indicated. As for instance, this might be indicated for a composite or wood airplane, or for some other special consideration. It is the intent that no airplane would be excluded because of its construction type. No aircraft may be judged for an award previously won by that same aircraft. However, if the aircraft was significantly improved and additional documented restoration work was accomplished, then it could be considered again for judging. A change of ownership does not qualify an aircraft to be judged for that same award. In all cases of eligibility, etc., a vote by the majority of judges will be used to decide. A. B C. D. E. F. G. H. I.

Grand Champion...........................................................Gold Lindy Reserve Grand Champion .......................................... Silver Lindy Champion.................................................................. Bronze Lindy Outstanding Metal Floatplane .............................................Plaque Outstanding Fabric Floatplane............................................Plaque Outstanding Amphibian.......................................................Plaque Outstanding Homebuilt .......................................................Plaque Judgesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Choice....................................................................Plaque Outstanding Workmanship, Ultralight .................................Plaque

October 2011

EAA SEAPLANE JUDGING FORM CATEGORY FABRIC METAL AMPHIBIAN REGISTRATION NO _______________________________ AIRCRAFT TYPE __________________________________ OWNER __________________________________________ EAA #____________________________ (Required)

OWNER’S ADDRESS_________________________________________________________________ PHONE # _______________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS __________________________________ Poor – Fair – Good – Very Good – Excellent GENERAL

0-4

APPEARANCE

5-8

(20)

9 - 12

UNDER-

0 -2

carriage

3-4

(10)

5–6

13 - 16

7–8

17 – 20

9 - 10

COCKPIT

0-3

(15)

4–6

7–9

10 – 12

13 - 15

ENGINE

0–3

(15)

4–6

7–9

FUSELAGE

0-3

(15)

4–6

7–9

WINGS &

10 - 12

13 – 15

0–3

Tail

4–6

(15)

7–9

10 –12

10 – 12

13 - 15

BONUS POINTS

TOTAL

____________

Presentation Book

0–5

BONUS POINTS TOTAL

____________

Difficulty

0–5

TOTAL

____________

JUDGE’S REMARKS _______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

October 2011

JUDGE

____________

JUDGE QUALIFICATION SHEET NAME ___________________________________________ EAA #______________________________ (Required)

STREET ADDRESS____________________________________________________________________ CITY/STATE/ZIP _____________________________________________________________________ CONTACTS:

TELEPHONE (Home)

(Office)

(Fax)

E-MAIL ADDRESS

EAA CHAPTER #

Have you/are you building or restoring an aircraft?

_____ YES

_____ NO

Name/Type _____________________ Pilot License

_____ Private

______Commercial

_____ Air

Mechanic License

______ Aircraft

______ Power Plant

______ Other

Chapter Designer

______ Yes

______ No

______

Please list experience or education felt by you to be pertinent to qualify you as a aircraft judge. __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

October 2011

NOTES

October 2011

NOTES

October 2011

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION EAA Aviation Center P.O. Box 3086 Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086 Phone 1-800-EAA-INFO Fax 920-426-6579 Email: chapters@eaa.org www.eaa.org

October 2011